Two Kingdoms, Two Judgments - part 2

Note: This is the second of a two-part series.  You can read part one here.

Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’
Matthew 20:15

[28] So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. [29] For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. [30] And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
Matthew 25:28–30

In part one of this series, I offered a non-traditional interpretation of the parable of the minas in Luke 19 by walking through the entire chapter in the wider context of the gospel according to Luke.

In this second installment, I plan to demonstrate that the parallel account—the parable of the talents—in Matthew 25 should be interpreted through the same framework based on the context of the entire chapter and the wider context of the gospel according to Matthew.

So before we jump into Matthew 25, I'm going to start back in Matthew 6, then hop over to Matthew 20, before we finally land in Matthew 25.

Matthew 6

Right smack in the middle of what we've come to know as the "Sermon on the Mount", Jesus sets forth an essential contrast between His kingdom and the kingdoms of the world:

[19] “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, [20] but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. [21] For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. [22] “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, [23] but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! [24] “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
Matthew 6:19–24

In verses 19-21, Jesus commands His disciples to store up treasures in heaven rather than on earth.

In verse 24, Jesus teaches His disciples that serving God and money/mammon are mutually exclusive.  You can't serve both.  You can only choose one as master and to choose one is to necessarily reject the other.

Sandwiched in between verses 19-21 regarding where we store treasure and verse 24 regarding which master we serve are verses 22-23 where Jesus gives us a third word picture: that of the eye as the lamp of the body.  This word picture is probably the most cryptic of the three.  In context, what does it mean that the eye is the lamp of the body and how does it relate to the word picture that precedes (where we store treasure) and follows (which master we serve) it?

Well, just like the other two word pictures, this word picture contains a contrast.  We can either have an eye that is healthy/good (Matthew 6:22) or an eye that is bad/evil (Matthew 6:23).  In context, what does it mean to have a healthy eye vs a bad eye?

The Greek word behind the adjective healthy is ἁπλοῦς (haplous).  As an adjective, it only appears one other place in the New Testament: in Luke 11:34, which is the parallel lesson in Luke about a healthy vs. bad eye.  But the word appears exactly once as an adverb in the following New Testament passage:

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
James 1:5

Which English word in this verse translates the Greek adverb ἁπλῶς (haplos)?  If you hadn't yet figured it out, it's the word generously.  In fact, the noun form of the same word ἁπλότης (haplotes) appears seven times in the New Testament.  Four out of those seven times, the word is translated as generosity.  And three other times it's translated as sincerity.  So the majority case for the translation of this word has to do with being generous.  In James 1:5, God is being characterized as generous.  In the context in which Jesus uses the term in Matthew 6:22, the idea of generosity makes perfect sense.

Jesus is saying that we will live in one of two ways:

1. We can live as servants of money/mammon (Matthew 6:24) who store up treasures on earth (Matthew 6:19) rooted in a heart that is evil/greedy (Matthew 6:23).
2. We can live as servants of God (Matthew 6:24) who store up treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:20) rooted in a heart that is healthy/generous (Matthew 6:22).

Notice that the condition of the eye is the root in both cases.  Who we serve and where we store treasure is the consequence of the condition of our eye: whether our eye (basically, our heart as the seat of our affections/desires) is healthy/generous or evil/greedy.  This makes sense of the placement of this third word picture in the middle, sandwiched between the other two.  In Hebrew thought, the middle of a chiastic structure is the central idea.

Before moving on to chapter 20, if we continue through to the end of chapter 6, we see Jesus builds on this by setting the nations who seek after what they will eat, drink, and wear in contrast to His disciples who are to seek first the kingdom of God.

Those who seek what they will eat, drink, and wear are necessarily identified with those whose hearts are evil/greedy, resulting in storing up treasures on earth and serving money/mammon in anxiety.

Those who seek first the kingdom of God are necessarily identified with those whose hearts are healthy/generous, resulting in storing up treasures in heaven and serving God in freedom from anxiety.

God is a generous master, so serving Him frees us from anxiety and makes us more generous.  But money/mammon is not a generous master, so serving him necessarily weighs us down with anxiety and makes us more greedy.

Matthew 20

As we move to Matthew 20, we encounter the parable of the laborers in the vineyard preceded immediately by the story of the rich young ruler in Matthew 19.  Each of these textual units ends with a similar proverb by Jesus, almost certainly to indicate to us as readers that there's a relationship between the two:

But many who are first will be last, and the last first.
Matthew 19:30

So the last will be first, and the first last.”
Matthew 20:16

What's the relationship between these two textual accounts based on them both ending with a similar proverb?

In the story of the rich young ruler, Jesus challenges the rich young ruler to sell all that he has and give to the poor (Matthew 19:21).  In other words, by instructing him to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, Jesus challenges him to reverse the inequities of the socioeconomic system that promoted he who had much having leftover and he who had little having lack.  The rich young ruler refuses (Matthew 19:22), presumably because he can't bear to part with his earthly treasures.  His eye is evil/greedy.  The disciples are conditioned to think that such a wealthy man is blessed by God (Matthew 19:25).  But Jesus wraps up the segment by teaching them that they are the ones who are blessed, not the likes of the rich young ruler.  They are blessed because, though it looks at the present time like they who give up everything to follow Jesus are the losers compared to those like the rich young ruler who refuse to give up anything, the truth is that the first will be last and the last first.  In other words, it's the likes of the rich young rulers who are the losers in the long run and those who give up everything to follow Jesus who are the winners.

In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, Jesus is teaching His disciples how the kingdom of heaven is different from the kingdoms of the world.  The comparison is built on a story of a master who hires workers throughout the day and then finally compensates them when the day is over.  The shock value in the passage comes in the master's actions when paying his workers, with the intention of showing us how God's economy in the kingdom of heaven differs from the economy of the kingdoms of the world.  We see this difference in at least two ways:

1. The master in the parable pays first those who were hired last instead of paying first those who were hired first as societal norms would have dictated.
2. The master in the parable pays everyone the same amount instead of paying more money to those who worked more and less money to those who worked less as societal norms would have dictated.

It's this second point that gets the greater focus in the parable because those who worked more complain not that they are paid last but rather they complain that they are paid the same as those who worked less than them rather than being paid more (Matthew 20:12).

Where Jesus challenged the rich young ruler to reverse the inequities of the socioeconomic system that promoted he who had much having leftover and he who had little having lack, the master in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard—who represents God as the sovereign in the kingdom of heaven—enforces the reversal of these socioeconomic inequities by paying each worker the same so that they will all have what they need.  It's the individuals who live in the expectation of being beneficiaries of socioeconomic inequity who will be last in the kingdom of heaven.

So here's the connection.  In Matthew 19, it's the rich young ruler who lives in the expectation of being a beneficiary of socioeconomic inequity who is the loser in the long run (the first will be last).  In Matthew 20, it's those who were hired first who live in the expectation of being beneficiaries of socioeconomic inequity who are the losers in the long run (the last will be first).

Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’
Matthew 20:15

Those who live in the expectation of being beneficiaries of socioeconomic inequity (the rich young ruler in Matthew 19 and the workers hired first in Matthew 20) miss two (related) principles from this verse:

1. Everything belongs to God and nothing belongs to us.  Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?  When everything belongs to God, there's no reason to amass wealth and possessions of our own, trying to secure a larger share of the pie than others.  God owns the cattle on a thousand hills (Psalm 50:10).  We own nothing but are ever receiving on lend from God.
2. God is generous.  Or do you begrudge my generosity?  This isn't a good literal translation of Matthew 20:15b.  A more literal translation would be: Is your eye evil because I am generous?  Jesus is literally picking up and applying here the same word picture from Matthew 6:22-23: [22] “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy/generous, your whole body will be full of light, [23] but if your eye is bad/evil/greedy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!  Because these workers and the rich young ruler have a greedy eye/heart, they not only are blinded to the fact that God is generous but also to the fact that God desires to be generous in meeting all their needs.  So they spend their entire lives trying to meet their own needs and thinking that means that others must have less in order for this to be possible.

We're now ready to look at Matthew 25.

Matthew 25

Matthew 25 is undeniably about judgment.  But what we so often assume, which I'm challenging here, is that in every part of this chapter it's God doing the judging.  I think we assume this because we read the chapter too quickly.  So please slow down with me as we walk through this chapter.

The first unit in Matthew 25:1-13 is about ten virgins.  It begins with "Then the kingdom of heaven will be like..."  This is obviously talking about judgment rendered by God because we know that, as we saw in Matthew 20, God is the sovereign in the kingdom of heaven.  We see in Matthew 25:10 that the bridegroom—who represents Jesus—comes to welcome five of the virgins to the marriage feast while the other five are shut out in judgment.

The second unit in Matthew 25:14-30 is about the parable of the talents.  This one makes no reference to the "kingdom of heaven" or "the Son of Man" or any such title that is unquestionably to be identified with Jesus.  I think that should get our radars up.  But, furthermore, consider a couple of observations in light of what we've seen in Matthew 6 and 20 so far:

1. In Matthew 25:24, the master is described as a hard (σκληρός — skleros) man.  This seems to be a total contrast to the way the master in Matthew 20 is characterized as generous.
2. In Matthew 25:28, the master takes the one talent away from the third servant and gives it to the first servant who already has ten.  He follows that action with this statement in Matthew 25:29: "For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away."  This, too, is the very opposite of what the master in Matthew 20 does.  In Matthew 20, the master enforces the reversal of socioeconomic inequities so that he who has much has nothing leftover and he who has little has no lack.  Here in Matthew 25, the master encourages and promotes socioeconomic inequities so that he who has much has leftover and he who has little lacks.  These two masters are working at cross-purposes with each other.

I propose that the master in the second unit, the parable of the talents, represents not God but the power brokers of the kingdoms of the world who benefit from and thus promote socioeconomic inequity.  Aligning oneself with these power brokers represents serving money/mammon rather than serving God.  And if anyone refuses to play by the rules of this game that continues to reinforce these socioeconomic inequities, they are judged by these power brokers through being marginalized (i.e. "cast into the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth", Matthew 25:30).  This then leads to the third unit in Matthew 25.

The third unit in Matthew 25:31-46 is about the sheep and the goats.  It begins with "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne."  This is obviously talking about judgment rendered by Jesus as the sovereign in the kingdom of heaven.  And where does Jesus find His sheep whom He directs to enter into life?  He finds them caring for the least of these: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and prisoners.  In other words, He finds them dwelling among and ministering to the marginalized who are presumably in the "outer darkness" having been rejected by the powers that be in the immediately preceding parable.  Those who have been condemned by the world are vindicated and rewarded by the Son of Man when He comes in His glory.

Here's how I put together all three units in Matthew 25.

All three parables in Matthew 25 are about judgment:

1. 10 virgins (1-13)
2. 3 servants (14-30)
3. Sheep and goats (31-46)

And in each account Jesus explains that there are those who prioritize and pursue the things of the kingdoms of the world (1) and those who prioritize and pursue the things of the kingdom of God (2):

1. 5 foolish virgins align with first 2 servants and the goats — prioritizing and pursuing the things of the kingdoms of the world — serving money/mammon
2. 5 wise virgins align with third servant and the sheep — prioritizing and pursuing the things of the kingdom of God — serving God

So we can choose, like group 1, to live to avoid being marginalized by the kingdoms of the world and "cast into outer darkness."

Or we can choose, like group 2, to live to avoid being sent away by the King of kings into eternal punishment.

But we cannot avoid both.  Just like we cannot serve both God and money/mammon.  To serve the one is to be judged by the other.